From a young OL scout team player

[knapplc]

Regarding the bolded section: Do you have a link for this?

 

Here's a LINK to a Statepaper article quoting Bo saying that. If you read the whole paragraph it's in, they're interpreting Bo's comment as leaning toward experience rather than stats.

[robsker]

Really?

 

We sound like Missouri fans when they expected to have a more productive offense after losing Chase Daniel, Maclin, and Coffman to the NFL.

 

I'm all for optimism . . . but to believe that our DL will IMPROVE after losing one of the greatest defensive tackles in college football history AND a starting defensive end is completely irrational. Bookmark this post. Our defensive line will take a step backwards next year (but will still be solid.) At the end of the season we will review the statistics (Tackles, Tackles for loss, hurries, sacks, passes broken up) and they will be worse than this year.

This. I just don't understand how anybody can reasonably say that our DL will be better. Our LB's can certainly be better, and the secondary could be a little better (only a little because of how well they played this season). The overall defense could be better (and the coaches have said they expect it), but I doubt even that will be true. We had the best defense in the country (IMO) and one of the best EVER at NU. And the DL was one of the best ever. And we had possibly the best DT ever. I just don't understand where the projected improvement is to come from.

 

As for this analysis:

Allen > Allen

Steinkuhler < Suh

Crick > Crick

Meredith > Turner

I'd argue (using the same notation):

Allen > Allen

Steinkuhler (or Moore/etc.) <<< Suh

Crick > Crick

Meredith (or Ankrah/Williams/etc.) <= Turner

 

 

As to the Carlfrense comparison of losing Suh to Missouri losing Danial, Macklin and Coffman --- this comparison is well....

 

 

OK --- an offense losing its QB, their best Wr and an awesome TE --- all All-American-caliber players --- and a defense losing a DT (albeit a truly exceptional one) is just a comparison that cannot be made. Losing the three pinnacle players on the Offense (the QB and the two top weapons --- 3/11ths of the offense)) is light years a greater an impact on an offense than is losing a single player on D (1/11th of the defense/ 14th of the Dl and a DT). Sure a DT is an important position to a defense --- but pales compared to the importance of the QB on offense (and then add in the loss of two sensational players in addition).

 

So... when Missouri fans were talking an improved offense after losing their three best players --- a QB among them --- that WAS irrational. Losing Suh on our defense is big... certainly. His impact on the DL is huge --- but not as huge as the Missou trio's impact on their offense.

 

Finally, the composite differential between the replacements and the exiting three at Missouri (coupled to their position impact on the unit) is greater than that for replacing Suh with Steinkuhler.

[caveman99]

As for this analysis:

Allen > Allen

Steinkuhler < Suh

Crick > Crick

Meredith > Turner

I'd argue (using the same notation):

Allen > Allen

Steinkuhler (or Moore/etc.) <<< Suh

Crick > Crick

Meredith (or Ankrah/Williams/etc.) <= Turner

You didn't watch Turner much if you think Meredith won't walk in and be as good or better. Meredith started zero games to Turner's 14 and has stats that are half as good in just spot duty. I can't find a breakdown of plays each saw, but if I could I will guarantee that, per play, Meredith out-performed Turner. No question.

 

And while I can't cite anything to disagree with your <<<Suh assessment, I don't think the dropoff is going to be that pronounced. Stein is getting a lot of love. Moore is a stud with an injury problem. I'm not going to pretend either is remotely comparable to Suh, but it won't be like a black hole suddenly developed.

 

Crick will be improved with a year of starting under his belt. I don't think anyone is debating that.

 

Allen should be better with a year under his belt. I think he regressed slightly from 2008 to 2009, having trouble shedding blocks and making plays, and hopefully that's addressed in the offseason.

These comparisons aren't really what should be getting looked at. Crick can't be compared to Crick, he has to be compared to Suh because that is the role he needs to fill next season. The big questions are can Crick fill the role of Suh and still be nearly as productive as Crick was this year? If he does that then it will only be a slight drop off statistically from Suh, bottom line can Crick still produce being doubled more than 50% of the time? The second big question is can Baker or Moore step into Crick's spot and get similar COMBINED production as Crick got next to Suh in 2009? Bottom line, are they ready to step up and make teams pay for doubling Crick the same way Crick made teams pay for doubling Suh in 2009. Those are the big quesitons. Allen should be better, I would hope that his numbers are a bit better than in 2008. I think Meredith is as good as Turner and will be just as good statistically if not better next season.

[carlfense]

Regarding the bolded section: Do you have a link for this?

 

Here's a LINK to a Statepaper article quoting Bo saying that. If you read the whole paragraph it's in, they're interpreting Bo's comment as leaning toward experience rather than stats.

 

I don't see in that link where he says he expects the defensive line to be better. I know that Bo said he expects the defense to be "five times better," but I've still yet to see him or Carl say that the defensive line will be better. (Unless of course I am missing something in the article you posted.) I'm not arguing that the defense as a whole might be better, I'm simply arguing that the DL will almost certainly regress.

[carlfense]

These comparisons aren't really what should be getting looked at. Crick can't be compared to Crick, he has to be compared to Suh because that is the role he needs to fill next season. The big questions are can Crick fill the role of Suh and still be nearly as productive as Crick was this year? If he does that then it will only be a slight drop off statistically from Suh, bottom line can Crick still produce being doubled more than 50% of the time? The second big question is can Baker or Moore step into Crick's spot and get similar COMBINED production as Crick got next to Suh in 2009? Bottom line, are they ready to step up and make teams pay for doubling Crick the same way Crick made teams pay for doubling Suh in 2009. Those are the big quesitons. Allen should be better, I would hope that his numbers are a bit better than in 2008. I think Meredith is as good as Turner and will be just as good statistically if not better next season.

 

You nailed it. The real question is can Crick/Baker > Suh/Crick. Count me in the doubtful group.

 

(However, I do agree that Meredith will be a good one.)

[caveman99]

These comparisons aren't really what should be getting looked at. Crick can't be compared to Crick, he has to be compared to Suh because that is the role he needs to fill next season. The big questions are can Crick fill the role of Suh and still be nearly as productive as Crick was this year? If he does that then it will only be a slight drop off statistically from Suh, bottom line can Crick still produce being doubled more than 50% of the time? The second big question is can Baker or Moore step into Crick's spot and get similar COMBINED production as Crick got next to Suh in 2009? Bottom line, are they ready to step up and make teams pay for doubling Crick the same way Crick made teams pay for doubling Suh in 2009. Those are the big quesitons. Allen should be better, I would hope that his numbers are a bit better than in 2008. I think Meredith is as good as Turner and will be just as good statistically if not better next season.

 

You nailed it. The real question is can Crick/Baker > Suh/Crick. Count me in the doubtful group.

 

(However, I do agree that Meredith will be a good one.)

Baker has gotten some love, but Carl has made it clear that Baker needs to work his a$$ off this off season to make a similar jump that Crick made last off season. Carl even talked about how he had a conversation with Baker about what Crick's work ethic and how Baker needs to emulate Jared to get himself to the next level. Baker has the potential, and showed pretty good play at the end of the season IMO, now he needs to fully tap into that potential.

[carlfense]

As to the Carlfrense comparison of losing Suh to Missouri losing Danial, Macklin and Coffman --- this comparison is well....

 

 

OK --- an offense losing its QB, their best Wr and an awesome TE --- all All-American-caliber players --- and a defense losing a DT (albeit a truly exceptional one) is just a comparison that cannot be made. Losing the three pinnacle players on the Offense (the QB and the two top weapons --- 3/11ths of the offense)) is light years a greater an impact on an offense than is losing a single player on D (1/11th of the defense/ 14th of the Dl and a DT). Sure a DT is an important position to a defense --- but pales compared to the importance of the QB on offense (and then add in the loss of two sensational players in addition).

 

So... when Missouri fans were talking an improved offense after losing their three best players --- a QB among them --- that WAS irrational. Losing Suh on our defense is big... certainly. His impact on the DL is huge --- but not as huge as the Missou trio's impact on their offense.

 

Finally, the composite differential between the replacements and the exiting three at Missouri (coupled to their position impact on the unit) is greater than that for replacing Suh with Steinkuhler.

 

Uh huh. And so the downplaying of what Suh accomplished begins. Suh took over games from the DEFENSIVE TACKLE position. Think about that for a second . . . he dominated games from a position where it's generally thought to be impossible to dominate games from. Suh almost single handedly won us games against MU and the near miss against Texas. (Without him, we're not even close to winning against UT.) You're right . . . losing a Heisman trophy finalist DT shouldn't have much impact at all...

[knapplc]

Regarding the bolded section: Do you have a link for this?

 

Here's a LINK to a Statepaper article quoting Bo saying that. If you read the whole paragraph it's in, they're interpreting Bo's comment as leaning toward experience rather than stats.

 

I don't see in that link where he says he expects the defensive line to be better. I know that Bo said he expects the defense to be "five times better," but I've still yet to see him or Carl say that the defensive line will be better. (Unless of course I am missing something in the article you posted.) I'm not arguing that the defense as a whole might be better, I'm simply arguing that the DL will almost certainly regress.

I don't think that quote exists. The comment was about the defense as a whole.

 

I think we can make a safe argument that the D Line will regress. I'm not uncomfortable saying that. I think an argument can be made that the D Line will be better, and that's based on a lot of "what ifs" that we won't know the answer to until we play... Washington? K State? Hard to say.

 

I just know that I'm excited about the potential of a solid line of Allen, Stein/Moore, Crick and Meredith (Ankrah?). I don't see a D Line that I'm happy to face there if I'm an OC from Texas or Missouri, especially if our LB play improves even marginally, and our secondary even remains stagnant, neither of which I expect to happen.

 

To be quite honest with you all, I expect at least one opponent to flee the field in tears before ever taking a single snap next year, forfeiting the game. I really, really do.

[robsker]

I think I'm going to be very tired of the Crick is going to be the next Suh talk. Honestly, it sounds ridiculous. I think Crick will be a very good player. Suh was great/elite.

 

It reminds me of the "Zac Lee will make everyone forget about Joe Ganz" talk that I fought all last year . . . except this one is even more implausible.

 

The reality of the situation is that we will almost certainly take a step back on the DL next year.

 

 

Well... I'd expect that Pierre Allen will be improved next year over where he was this year. Also, Crick will be improved. That is two of the four positions improved... with certainty. Meredith will replace Turner and honestly, I'd expect that to be a modest step up over last year --- or, at the very least, equal with last year. The overall depth will be improved with Ankrah coming in and the other younger players. the only position taking a step backwards is the position vacated by Suh and taken by Steinkuhler. And Steinkuhler will still be very, very good. So.... as Pelini has said himself --- and I will parrot and agree with --- our DL stands to be somewhat improved next year --- 3 of the 4 positions will improve and depth will improve --- and Steinkuhler is really good.

 

Really?

 

We sound like Missouri fans when they expected to have a more productive offense after losing Chase Daniel, Maclin, and Coffman to the NFL.

 

I'm all for optimism . . . but to believe that our DL will IMPROVE after losing one of the greatest defensive tackles in college football history AND a starting defensive end is completely irrational. Bookmark this post. Our defensive line will take a step backwards next year (but will still be solid.) At the end of the season we will review the statistics (Tackles, Tackles for loss, hurries, sacks, passes broken up) and they will be worse than this year.

 

 

Irrational, certainly not. Unless, of course, you think that Bo Pelini is irrational as well --- for he has been quoted as saying he thinks, overall, that not only will the defense in general be better next year but also that even the DL will be better. Maybe he is into hyperbloe --- maybe. (By the way, I am at work so don't bother asking me to find his quote somewhere, but I have read his quote several time --- and there is no doubt that Bo thinks the DL will improve).

 

Certainly Crick and Allen improve, Meredith will equal or better Turner, and Ankrah and Moore bring some real quality depth. Losing Suh hurts, certainly --- but every position other than his will improve. And his replacement will be (we think) really, really good. Steinkuhler is, I suppose, a key here. if he is the load he is expected to be, then Crick will likely not face as many double teams as many predict --- or, if he does, then Steinkuhler shines one-on-one.

 

To say that such a prediction is irrational.... is, well... certainly indefensible. To say that it is perhaps more likely that the DL will be different than, but comparable, to last years is certainly reasonable an alternative. Even to say that a slight drop-off is more likely is as well is a reasonable alternative. All three possibilities are fairly likely. None of the three scenarios are unlikely. The only unlikely alternatives are massive improvement or a massive drop-off --- such would be, indeed, irrational.

 

Still... I go with Bo and predict modest improvement of the unit (and the defense in general).

Regarding the bolded section: Do you have a link for this? I don't think I have ever seen where Bo said that he expects the DL to be better. I heard the "I expect the defense to be five times better" quote many times, but I've never seen him directly address the DL.

 

I do remember Carl addressing the DL and saying that you don't just replace a player like Suh, and that the entire defensive line would have to step up significantly to replace his productivity.

 

Edit: Are you really arguing that our DL statistics next year will be better than this year? I don't ever bet money . . . but that would be something I would want to wager on. Semantics aside, there is a much greater chance that our DL is worse next year than the chance that the DL will be better.

 

 

Good question regarding whether what is in view is stats or simply whether the DL will continue (and maybe improve upon) stopping the run and getting pressure on the QB with just a 4 man effort. I'm not so disposed to view tackle stats and the like as being that meaningful (to a degree they are but there is clearly a difficulty in comparing year to year --- different opponents, etc.). So really what I am saying is that the DL's contribution towards limiting the opponents from scoring and being a force and enabling the back seven to produce will be as good (or slightly better) next year. Tough to measure, sure.

 

Perhaps one stat might go up. Sacks. That is one that a friendly bet could be wagered upon --- I'd feel fairly comfortable predicting that the composite DLinemen next year get more sacks than the DL got this past year.

 

Also, to be fair and reflect well where I am coming from, I would not be surprised if the DL next year was different from but comparable than the DL this year. I'd even say I would not be surprised overly if there was a slight drop-off. I just think that there is slightly greater a probability that a modest improvement (albeit perhaps not directly observable in tackle stats) will be manifest.

[carlfense]

***snip***

I don't think that quote exists. The (Pelini's) comment was about the defense as a whole.

***snip***

 

That was my point. Robsker stated that Pelini said that he expects the defensive line to be better. I asked for a link because I can't recall ever reading or hearing that.

 

Here is Robsker's quote: "not only will the defense in general be better next year but also that even the DL will be better."

 

I don't think either Pelini has ever said that and I doubt that they believe that. (Regarding the defensive line.)

[Spartness]

Let's assume there is a 99 percent chance that none of our DTs will be as good as Suh. But that doesn't mean Steinkuler and Crick can't be a great twosome. The Peter brothers were great together, and neither was as talented as Suh and probably not as talented as Warren Sapp and William "Refrigerator" Perry.

[robsker]

As to the Carlfrense comparison of losing Suh to Missouri losing Danial, Macklin and Coffman --- this comparison is well....

 

 

OK --- an offense losing its QB, their best Wr and an awesome TE --- all All-American-caliber players --- and a defense losing a DT (albeit a truly exceptional one) is just a comparison that cannot be made. Losing the three pinnacle players on the Offense (the QB and the two top weapons --- 3/11ths of the offense)) is light years a greater an impact on an offense than is losing a single player on D (1/11th of the defense/ 14th of the Dl and a DT). Sure a DT is an important position to a defense --- but pales compared to the importance of the QB on offense (and then add in the loss of two sensational players in addition).

 

So... when Missouri fans were talking an improved offense after losing their three best players --- a QB among them --- that WAS irrational. Losing Suh on our defense is big... certainly. His impact on the DL is huge --- but not as huge as the Missou trio's impact on their offense.

 

Finally, the composite differential between the replacements and the exiting three at Missouri (coupled to their position impact on the unit) is greater than that for replacing Suh with Steinkuhler.

 

Uh huh. And so the downplaying of what Suh accomplished begins. Suh took over games from the DEFENSIVE TACKLE position. Think about that for a second . . . he dominated games from a position where it's generally thought to be impossible to dominate games from. Suh almost single handedly won us games against MU and the near miss against Texas. (Without him, we're not even close to winning against UT.) You're right . . . losing a Heisman trophy finalist DT shouldn't have much impact at all...

 

 

In no way have I downplayed Suh as a contributor. Actually he was, as you say, remarkable --- especially as a DL. Nearly, and perhaps it can be be defensibly argued, literally without precedent --- for a DT. All kudos to the man. But....

 

The QB position is far more intrinsically important to an offense than is a DT to a defense. NO ONE could argue that point otherwise. Add in the WR and TE and take a composite of the impact of losing stellar people at three positions and in no way can the loss of a DT be equated (no matter how good that DT was). An example --- If we had a high performing QB this past season then we beat VT, Iowa State and Texas. Period. We did not have such a player. Or... another way of looking at it is this... if I could have Suh back next year and not have Coffman, Macklin and Danial or I could give up Suh and take Coffman, Macklin and Danial ---- well as awesome a player as Suh was, I would take, in a heartbeat, an excellent QB, TE & WR over any single DT --- no matter how awesome the DT was.

 

Losing Suh is bad. Sure. No disparaging him at all. He was better as a DT than was Danial as a QB or Macklin as a WR or Coffman as a TE --- by a wide margin. He was better at his position this past year than any other player at any other position. And the DT is an important position --- very important. But it is not as important to the D as the QB is to the O.

[carlfense]

As to the Carlfrense comparison of losing Suh to Missouri losing Danial, Macklin and Coffman --- this comparison is well....

 

 

OK --- an offense losing its QB, their best Wr and an awesome TE --- all All-American-caliber players --- and a defense losing a DT (albeit a truly exceptional one) is just a comparison that cannot be made. Losing the three pinnacle players on the Offense (the QB and the two top weapons --- 3/11ths of the offense)) is light years a greater an impact on an offense than is losing a single player on D (1/11th of the defense/ 14th of the Dl and a DT). Sure a DT is an important position to a defense --- but pales compared to the importance of the QB on offense (and then add in the loss of two sensational players in addition).

 

So... when Missouri fans were talking an improved offense after losing their three best players --- a QB among them --- that WAS irrational. Losing Suh on our defense is big... certainly. His impact on the DL is huge --- but not as huge as the Missou trio's impact on their offense.

 

Finally, the composite differential between the replacements and the exiting three at Missouri (coupled to their position impact on the unit) is greater than that for replacing Suh with Steinkuhler.

 

Uh huh. And so the downplaying of what Suh accomplished begins. Suh took over games from the DEFENSIVE TACKLE position. Think about that for a second . . . he dominated games from a position where it's generally thought to be impossible to dominate games from. Suh almost single handedly won us games against MU and the near miss against Texas. (Without him, we're not even close to winning against UT.) You're right . . . losing a Heisman trophy finalist DT shouldn't have much impact at all...

 

 

In no way have I downplayed Suh as a contributor. Actually he was, as you say, remarkable --- especially as a DL. Nearly, and perhaps it can be be defensibly argued, literally without precedent --- for a DT. All kudos to the man. But....

 

The QB position is far more intrinsically important to an offense than is a DT to a defense. NO ONE could argue that point otherwise. Add in the WR and TE and take a composite of the impact of losing stellar people at three positions and in no way can the loss of a DT be equated (no matter how good that DT was). An example --- If we had a high performing QB this past season then we beat VT, Iowa State and Texas. Period. We did not have such a player. Or... another way of looking at it is this... if I could have Suh back next year and not have Coffman, Macklin and Danial or I could give up Suh and take Coffman, Macklin and Danial ---- well as awesome a player as Suh was, I would take, in a heartbeat, an excellent QB, TE & WR over any single DT --- no matter how awesome the DT was.

 

Losing Suh is bad. Sure. No disparaging him at all. He was better as a DT than was Danial as a QB or Macklin as a WR or Coffman as a TE --- by a wide margin. He was better at his position this past year than any other player at any other position. And the DT is an important position --- very important. But it is not as important to the D as the QB is to the O.

Who is arguing about intrinsic value? I'm talking about actual value to the defensive line. Here we were arguing about the impact of the loss of Suh to Nebraska's defensive line. I think that the comparative loss of Missouri's QB/WR/TE and the resulting loss of passing game productivity is a valid and useful comparison. I'm not talking about how the loss of Suh impacts the entire defense (which will, however, be significant). I'm simply talking about how his departure will impact the '10 defensive line.

 

Spin it into an argument of the intrinsic value of a quarterback to an entire offense versus the intrinsic value of a defensive tackle to a defense if you would like; but that is just shifting the discussion. The point being discussed is whether the defensive line will be better without Suh. I say it will not. Additionally, no one has come forward with the quote that you said you've seen multiple times where Pelini allegedly has stated that he expects an improved defensive line next year.

[NoKoolAidForME]

I just have a hard time believing that losing Suh we will be a better defense than this year. Bo and Carl say it and I will not argue their expertise. I think our Pass Defense was helped tremendously by the pressure that Suh put on the QB. You cant just look at stats when it comes to him. How many sacks and tackles did other D-linemen get when he push the pocket to the QB causing him them to move outside. The man finished the season with 12 sacks and 26 QB Hurries. How many of those play caused throwaways, bad passes or INT?

 

Like I said I will not doubt Coach Pelini he knows the team better than any of us. (even if hes not honest about team injuries) I will however wait to drink the Kool-aid

[caveman99]

I thought actually looking at the statistics from 2008 and 2009 would allow us to have more perspective to what we are talking about.

 

2008

-Starting 4

Suh - 76 TKLs, 19 TFLs, 7.5 Sacks

Steinkuhler - 48 TKLs, 8 TFLs, 2.5 Sacks

Allen - 52 TKLS, 10 TFLs, 5 Sacks

Potter - 47 TKLs, 16 TFLs, 5.5 Sacks

->Totals: 223 TKLs, 53 TFLs, 20.5 Sacks

 

-Back ups/Others

Barfield - 10 TKLs, 3 TFLs, 3 Sacks

Moore - 8 TKLs, 2 TFLs, 2 Sacks

Turner - 3 TKLs

Crick - 2 TKLs

->Totals: 23 TKLs, 5 TFLs, 5 Sacks

-->Overall Totals: 246 TKLs, 58 TFLs, 25.5 Sacks

 

2009

Suh - 85 TKLs, 24 TFLs, 12 Sacks

Crick - 73 TKLs, 15 TFLs, 9.5 Sacks

Allen - 51 TKLS, 12 TFLs, 5 Sacks

Turner - 51 TKLs, 16 TFLs, 5.5 Sacks

->Totals: 260 TKLs, 67 TFLs, 32 Sacks

 

-Back ups/Others

Meredith - 21 TKLs, 5 TFLs, 1.5 Sacks

Steinkuhler - 17 TKLs, 1 TFLs

Moore - 2 TKLs

Harvey - 1 TKL

->Totals: 41 TKLs, 6 TFLs, 1.5 Sacks

-->Overall Totals: 301 TKLs, 73 TFLs, 33.5 Sacks

 

Obviously the 2009 DL was significantly more productive than the 2008 unit. The big improvement came at the DT position. In 2008 Suh and Steinkuhler combined for 124 TKLs, 27 TFLs, and 10 Sacks. In 2009 Suh and Crick combined for 158 TKLs, 39 TFLs, and 21.5 Sacks, that represents 34 more TKLs, 12 more TFLs, and 11.5 more Sacks! The DE production was virtually the same in 2009 as it was in 2008.

 

Going back to what I said before, these stats show that the success of the 2010 unit depends on how well Crick will fill Suh's roll and how well Steinkuhler/Moore will fill Crick's roll. I would love for Allen to light it up in his Sr. season, and maybe he does, but I think it seems safe to put him down for 55-60 TKLs, 10-15 TFLs, and 5-6 Sacks. The wild card is Meredith. In 2009 Meredith had roughly 30% of the production that Turner did, yet he played much fewer than 30% of the Defensive Plays. I can't find the number of plays each defensive player had, but I feel pretty confident in making that statement. Question is will Meredith's production heavily outweigh Turner's production now that he will see 5 times the amount of playing time he had in 2009? If so, that will help make up a big portion of the production lost from Suh leaving.